posted
A very interesting debate between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza took place yesterday at Tufts University. The subject is "Is God a man made invention?"
I'm about halfway through it. D'Souza seems quite angry, and he broke Godwin's law about five minutes into his talk. Take that to mean what you will.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. I saw Michael Shermer and D'Souza debate, and it was reasonably civil. I thought Shermer was a bit more of a fair debater, since he was actually willing to concede that Christianity had done some good (the debate was on whether Christianity had a positive effect on the world or not). D'Souza, on the other hand, refused to give ground to a ridiculous degree. He made some really interesting points about the effect of Christianity on legal and social traditions, but then downplayed the Inquisition, saying that it wasn't that bad. It was a pretty good debate, though. I even got Shermer to sign my books afterward, much to the shock of some members of my church who were there Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
I certainly don't think he represents Christians in general.
I respect my Christian friends far too much to say that.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, KoM, it is just possible that, as with many groups of billions of people, that we are somewhat too diverse for any particular person to represent all of our views. I very much doubt that Mr. D'Souza would think I would adequately represent him.
And, as Shigosei noted, people that hold extreme position and can be counted on to rave, make much more interesting news.
quote:You know, it's kinda weird, but every time some Christian gets into the news, we're told that they don't represent Christians in general. You have to wonder where all these general Christians are, that we never hear of them.
That guy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? You're right, total scumbag.
-----------
quote:...people that hold extreme position and can be counted on to rave...
Hey, that's your kinda people, KoM! You two should totally do lunch. You can talk to him about how religious people are idiots, and you're smarter than them, and he can talk about how atheists are Nazis, and evil.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, now that I think about it, MLK probably shouldn't be used as an example of a religious person or a Christian. Tack on a hundred and fifty years or so to his death, and there will be people seriously suggesting he was secretly an atheist Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Actually, now that I think about it, MLK probably shouldn't be used as an example of a religious person or a Christian. Tack on a hundred and fifty years or so to his death, and there will be people seriously suggesting he was secretly an atheist
And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'd think there were other reasons that many Christians might object to MLK representing them. Like adultery and one or two other things.
It amuses me how many universities have cancelled D'Souza appearances -- and frequently then reinstated them when the cancellation was protested.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It amuses me how many universities have cancelled D'Souza appearances -- and frequently then reinstated them when the cancellation was protested.
Who has done the protesting for him?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I had never heard of him before, but after googling D'Souza, I certainly hope that people aren't foolish enought to believe that he represents Christianity in general.
I certainly don't think he represents Christians in general.
I respect my Christian friends far too much to say that.
I love D'Souza. He's very engaging, very passionate, and he really knows his stuff. Whether or not that stuff is wrong is of course the matter of debate, but he is undeniably a thinking man, and one of the most potentially influential Christian apologists out there today. I do consider many of his arguments to be pretty ridiculous - take his understanding of Pascal's Wager for instance - but even in this case it is evident that he has given a considerable amount of thought to the matter, and it requires a decent level of intellectual criticism in order to properly dispose of his reasoning. It is true that he can be pretty stubornly ignorant on certain points, but so are most people. And this is a debate after all.
All I'm saying is I respect the guy. If all Christians were like him, I don't think we (atheists) would have nearly as many problems with Christian beliefs. He's not representative of most Christians because most Christians - at least in this country and for whatever reason - simply don't care nearly as much about the moral and intellectual implications of their faith.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you aren't the majority, which is what I was contrasting D'Souza with. Obviously there are many, many exceptions, but that has nothing to do with my point except in the sense that, at least based on what little I know about you and your beliefs, I would say the same of you as I did of D'Souza: if the majority of Christians were like you, I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with Christianity (keeping in mind that this still has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm an atheist).
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong. (1) To blame all of the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao on atheism is ridiculous. Religous belief was a crime under Stalin and Mao, but it was hardly the only reason that anyone got executed. Furthermore, Hitler never attempted to make general religious belief a crime. He had a problem with Judaism but it's far-fetched to claim that the Holocaust was done in the name of atheism. (2) He says "Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades." as if it were fact. Ignoring the fact that the claim is debunked by my first point, it's entirely possible that it would be wrong anyways. Example: the Muslim conquest of India may have killed nearly 80 million people over the course of a few centuries. (3) The claim is totally irrelevant. The number of people killed in all of these historical massacres has depended on the resources available to the killers. Religion is not the reason that Stalin was able to kill more than the crusaders. The purpose of pointing out massacres done in the name of religion is to show that religion is not unequivocally good. This means that the claim that atheists have no morals is not only wrong (for other reasons), but is also not a good point in general because none of the major religions have been very successful at keeping their followers in check. Just look at the United States. I severely doubt that all the criminals in our prisons are atheists.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure you know there's a difference between respecting a person and respecting his/her beliefs. I don't respect many of D'Souza's beliefs. I do respect his intent and his effort.
Your points are good ones, but to state the blatant obviousness of their soundness is, I think, a bit ignorant of the fact that most people just don't find it all that obvious. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity, of course, but even their "undeniable" truth doesn't give cause to be pompous about it or to feel that those who don't "get it" are somehow intellectually inferior or undeserving of respect.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't an issue of beliefs. He published an article that was factually inaccurate. If he's going to label a group of people as most responsible for the murders that have occurred throughout history, then he better be damn sure that he is correct.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure you know there's a difference between respecting a person and respecting his/her beliefs. I don't respect many of D'Souza's beliefs. I do respect his intent and his effort.
Your points are good ones, but to state the blatant obviousness of their soundness is, I think, a bit ignorant of the fact that most people just don't find it all that obvious. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity, of course, but even their "undeniable" truth doesn't give cause to be pompous about it or to feel that those who don't "get it" are somehow intellectually inferior or undeserving of respect.
Have you watched this debate yet? If you haven't, do so, as you may lose some of your respect for him.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I watched it. And I have more respect for him than I do for most of his self-righteous questioners.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I'd think there were other reasons that many Christians might object to MLK representing them. Like adultery and one or two other things.
I don't understand your point. KoM, it's safe to say, wasn't just saying, "Christians are flawed." When projecting the flaws of D'Souza onto Christians in general, he was making a very different point. MLK soundly refutes that particular 'point'.
-------------
Javert,
quote:And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack
--------------
quote:It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong.
Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
You don't need to be religious to be a mass-murderer, or a hateful tyrant. Sometimes it helps, but so does having a winning smile and a magnetic personality.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack [Smile]
Except that MLK had the title "Reverend". Lincoln had no such handy identifier.
quote:Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
We do delve into those motivations. Unfortunately when we do, it often looks bad for religion.
Atheism is merely the position on one issue...there is nothing within atheism by itself to be the cause of killing.
Theism is the same. Nothing in the position of that one issue causes killing.
Religions that say things like "you shall not suffer a witch to live" and philosophies that say "these people are racially inferior", on the other hand, kill a lot of people.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And this is constructive to a conversation in what way?
Hey, if it can be done for Lincoln, it can happen for anyone. But perhaps you think it's not constructive because it's unfavorable to the posthumous conversion-to-atheism efforts being made in other discussions on Hatrack
He probably thinks that it's not constructive because it's a red herring.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's arguments like these that frustrate me because they are blatently wrong.
Why is it OK to delve into why atheists really did so much killing, but similar delving into ultimate motivations for why religious people did so much killing is dismissed because because religion is one of the proximate causes?
The whole debate over who killed more people is silly in general. The main reason that I would have for pointing out massacres motivated by religion is to show that religion is not an indisputably good force in the world. Atheists as a whole make no claim that atheism will bring peace and "good" to the world, so the point that atheist rulers have committed massacres isn't very relevant.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've met far too many atheists who automatically discount me as an evil, stupid, worthless cultist once they find out I'm Mormon to buy the "atheism does not lend itself to bigotry" view.
Atheists are no more likely to be free from prejudice than the most hardcore religious fanatic, at least in my own life experience.
Your mileage may vary.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He probably thinks that it's not constructive because it's a red herring.
I suppose it was. I wasn't really intending to do anything other than remark on a partially related very silly argument I noted elsewhere, that has since passed by. I never expected this to be seriously discussed here, or be a distraction.
But red herring and constructive aren't contradictory, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I've met far too many atheists who automatically discount me as an evil, stupid, worthless cultist once they find out I'm Mormon to buy the "atheism does not lend itself to bigotry" view.
Atheists are no more likely to be free from prejudice than the most hardcore religious fanatic, at least in my own life experience.
Your mileage may vary.
All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
And if it helps, this atheist doesn't think you're "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist".
I just disagree with you. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
It depends on what you mean by "cause". If your religion says you own a particular piece of land, and someone else's religion says that they own it, it will cause confrontation. Perhaps we can't blame religion directly for the violence, but we can certainly blame it for giving people the excuse to be violent.
Atheism doesn't work that way. Thinking believers are stupid could lead that way, of course.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on what you mean by "cause". If your religion says you own a particular piece of land, and someone else's religion says that they own it, it will cause confrontation. Perhaps we can't blame religion directly for the violence, but we can certainly blame it for giving people the excuse to be violent.
Find me a person whose religion tells them they own a piece of land, and see that that same person also really wants that land outside of religious considerations. Without delving into who's right and who's wrong, Israelis sure as hell want Israel for reasons not just religious.
As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing.
But if personal anecdotes about how stupid and awful religious people are are fair game, then surely the same works for atheists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing.
*DING DING DING* We have a winner!
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And so, if someone does something bad and they're also an atheist, we know it's not because they're an atheist.
It's the same with religion: the excuse is not the reason, it's the excuse. There's a reason we have those words.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As for atheism not working that way...well, atheism doesn't work any way. As far as being a motivator, it doesn't work at all. Atheism isn't a thing, it's a lack of a thing."
Exactly. Not only that, why is there this insistance from both sides on comparing atheism with such a blanket term as "religion" when the comparable equivalent is theism? Blaming this past violence on the belief, disbelief, or nonbelief of the existence of a god is just nonsense anyway, as is blaming it on "religion" as if it were some definitive entity with a specific set of beliefs.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
I'm not suggesting every atheist feels that way, but it's definitely not a stretch. Atheism can be an excuse because if atheism is correct, religious people are chumps.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
Depends on your personal philosophy. If you believe that the practice of religion can be beneficial for some people, regardless of the correctness of its truth claims, then there's nothing silly about it. But whether you hold that philosophical position or an opposing one is not dictated by atheism.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you belong to the "religious claims about God are probabilistically extremely unlikely" camp of atheists, then I can offer the following parallel.
People that play at casinos or play the lottery are arguably "chumps"(if I'm interpreting your definition of "chump" properly).
Doesn't particularly mean I feel like doing violence to the next guy I see with a Lotto 649 ticket though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Depends on your personal philosophy. If you believe that the practice of religion can be beneficial for some people, regardless of the correctness of its truth claims, then there's nothing silly about it. But whether you hold that philosophical position or an opposing one is not dictated by atheism.
I had this same discussion with someone else last week, and the same sticking point came up. I'm not sure why people seem to think I'm suggesting silly=harmful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because it's not unnatural to assume that if atheism is correct, then people praying to a big non-existent skydaddy are pretty silly, aren't they?
I'm not suggesting every atheist feels that way, but it's definitely not a stretch. Atheism can be an excuse because if atheism is correct, religious people are chumps.
Again, perhaps it could follow, but there's nothing in atheism to make people think that way. Religions have certain beliefs, rules and orders that can influence people to think in those ways.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can say is that there is nothing inherent in atheism that causes this. There's also nothing in atheism that prevents it.
If we're truly interested in truth, we're forced to admit there's nothing in religion that causes hate, bigotry, and violence.
It's just an excuse. The same way atheism can be an excuse for someone calling PT an evil, stupid, worthless cultist.
I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement like that to cover every instance of violence and injustice associated with religion. A case-by-case analysis would be necessary to determine whether and how much religion is accountable for any atrocity.
To say that "nothing in religion causes hate, bigotry, [or] violence," is a glossing over of the truth.
Hooookay, I hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew here, but take homosexuality as an example. Many straight males experience an acute visceral reaction at the thought of gay sex. It's difficult to know how Leviticus 18:6 affects that reaction, or to what extent, but I doubt it's a tempering effect. To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I'd also like to note that I think, generally, most of what I've said also applies to atheists, with different examples. How the respective body counts, so to speak, might stack up, I don't know. It is something I'd be interested to learn, but it would require a massive academic undertaking.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: had this same discussion with someone else last week, and the same sticking point came up. I'm not sure why people seem to think I'm suggesting silly=harmful.
I don't know why people seem to think that either. I was stating why it's *not* silly to do something that on the face seems useless if it's demonstrably beneficial. For instance, several studies have indicated that religious people, on average, live longer lives.
For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
While it's possible to build an atheistic philosophy that advocates the destruction of others, one can also logically assault that philosophy because, ultimately, it's a product of men which can be challenged by other men.
It's a bit more difficult to logically counter "God said so" when that reasoning is presented by a duly ordained priest with the authority to speak on behalf of God.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I think that the paradigms of atheism, pushed by prophets like Dawkins and Hitchens (and Dennett) enable atheists to do things like, to use Puffy's example, see an individual as "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist." I think atheism is just as adept at dehumanizing the Other as religion, and just as likely to lead to hate, bigotry and violence. Certainly atheism was an enabler (in the sense you cite) of Maoist China's cultural destruction and brutal repression of the people of Tibet. I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: To the extent then, that some people are enabled to express that reaction in hurtful ways, I think it's fair to say that religion has caused hate, bigotry, and in certain instances, violence.
I think that the paradigms of atheism, pushed by prophets like Dawkins and Hitchens (and Dennett) enable atheists to do things like, to use Puffy's example, see an individual as "an evil, stupid, worthless cultist." I think atheism is just as adept at dehumanizing the Other as religion, and just as likely to lead to hate, bigotry and violence. Certainly atheism was an enabler (in the sense you cite) of Maoist China's cultural destruction and brutal repression of the people of Tibet. I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
Again, atheism and theism can't enable violence or hatred. When you add particular philosophical positions to either of those things is when the trouble begins.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't buy the argument that religion can enable hatred but atheism can't.
I don't think anyone here has made that argument.
I do think that humanism, which often goes with atheism, can temper some of the in-group/out-group moral instincts people have.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
Here's the thing: religion doesn't just spring up in someone like Athena from Zeus's noggin, fully formed. People are religious and obedient in varying degrees, and ultimately it all comes down to choice. Not every member of the Nazi party was a Jew-hating murderer,even though they subscribed to the same general belief set that so many others who were did.
Those other steps? Still a personal thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me this comes down to the fact that there are a whole lot of steps that one must go through to get from "I don't believe in God" to "therefore I must kill you." There are, similarly, many steps between "I DO believe in God" and "therefore I must kill you" but so many of those steps are filled out in advance in the form of scripture and priestly power structures.
Here's the thing: religion doesn't just spring up in someone like Athena from Zeus's noggin, fully formed. People are religious and obedient in varying degrees, and ultimately it all comes down to choice. Not every member of the Nazi party was a Jew-hating murderer,even though they subscribed to the same general belief set that so many others who were did.
Those other steps? Still a personal thing.
Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then perhaps a person like that should stop calling themselves a Nazi and throwing their default support behind the murdering Nazis.
Are you really going to seriously examine my very coarse comparison, Javert?
Well, alright. Sure, that guy should stop being a Nazi, but just being a Nazi does not make him actually guilty of murdering Jews. The point is that however satisfying it may be to you to associate murder and violence with religion, you really need to go one step further than that to find the true common factor.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
